Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

(A) I tend to think that the relative pronoun ὃ refers to τοῦ λόγου in the phrase τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς . In other words, I believe the antecedent of ὃ above is τοῦ λόγου .

(B) Also I believe that the genitive ζωῆς in the prepositional phrase above is related epexegetically to the preceding λόγου, which therefore has the meaning "concerning the Word , that is, the Life." So the prepositional phrase is to be translated / understood as follows; "[I'm talking] of the Word , that is, the Life ."

(A) You need to read a bit further on in this straggly sentence to get the construction. The relative clauses are picked up in v.3 and are all the direct object of apaggellomen. V.2, grammatically speaking, is parenthetical, inasmuch as it interrupts the sentence begun in v.1. (Since logos is masculine, it couldn't be the antecedent of ὃ, neuter.) The ὃ has no antecedent, just "what we have heard" etc., "(the thing) which we have ...".

(B) I'd say τῆς ζωῆς will certainly be dependent on tou logou, not in apposition, nor a defining gen. (If he'd wanted to make it epexegetic he'd have had to add ὅ ἐστι.) I read it as an objective genitive myself.

mwh wrote:(A) You need to read a bit further on in this straggly sentence to get the construction. The relative clauses are picked up in v.3 and are all the direct object of apaggellomen. V.2, grammatically speaking, is parenthetical, inasmuch as it interrupts the sentence begun in v.1. (Since logos is masculine, it couldn't be the antecedent of ὃ, neuter.) The ὃ has no antecedent, just "what we have heard" etc., "(the thing) which we have ...".

.

The grammatical gender of λόγος is masculine. The neuter pronoun ὃ simply brings out it's natural gender (since the reference is to λόγου "from the beginning," prior to it's becoming a human being ) . It must be understood that this portion of the Epistle is a commentary on the Prologue of John, -- the parallelism with John 1:1-14 is unmistakable and undeniable, consider John 1:1 :

The antecedent of the pronon Οὗτος is λόγος in John 1:1 . Similarly the antecedent of the pronoun ὃ is also λόγος in 1 John 1:1 .

(B) I'd say τῆς ζωῆς will certainly be dependent on tou logou, not in apposition, nor a defining gen. (If he'd wanted to make it epexegetic he'd have had to add ὅ ἐστι.) I read it as an objective genitive myself.

I don't think this is true. Could you please explain where you're getting this from ?

mwh wrote:Yes I figured where you were coming from (Ev.J.), but I'm afraid I can't agree. To associate the ὃ clauses with the embedded and subordinated του λογου puts an impossible strain on the Greek.

I would humbly counter by suggesting that your proposal puts an insurmountable strain on the Greek. For example the main verb , according to your way of thinking, does not occur until the end of line 3, leaving the relative clauses impossibly dangling miles away from it, and cut off by multiple interruptions . You would have to add an equative verb , but doing so would render the first relative clause a subject when you want them to be objects. You would literally then have to ADD a phrase absent from the Greek text to make your reading tenable..

Please understand I have no axe to grind.

IMHO we all have axes to grind, some of us more so than others..

I speak only as an experienced reader of Greek (including NT), and I tell it like it is. As to B, of course you don't have to believe me on that either. All I can say is your way of construing it would be very forced.

χαρις σοι και ειρηνη

O.K. .. Do you stand by your original assertion that τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς in 1 John 1:1 cannot be two genitives in simple apposition unless we add ὅ ἐστι to the expression ? Because as far as I can tell, this is not true.

Notice the author refers to the pre-human τὸ φῶς (aka. ὁ λόγος, τῆς ζωῆς ) with the relative pronoun ὃ ,which he again employs in 1 John 1:1 to refer to the same thing, τῆς ζωῆς which he epexegetically identifies as ὁ λόγος.

I think Carl W. Conrad (Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus) ) has got the gist of it:

So far as the basic question being raised about the genitive case of ZWHS in relation to the genitive case of LOGOU is concerned, I think that what Clay Bartholomew has said in his immediate response is correct: there's nothing in the case-form or position of these words to indicate the syntactic or semantic relationship between the two--apart from the fact that PERI must govern TOU LOGOU and THS ZWHS must depend upon LOGOU.

However, my own view is that the genitive word ZWHS in this instance functions in an "epexegetical" or "definining" or "appositional" way to the preceding LOGOU upon which it depends, and I understand it to mean "concerning the Word (which is) Life."

I have not consulted the commentaries on this -- as perhaps I ought to -- before formulating here the view that I've long held but not hitherto expressed regarding this little prepositional phrase -- PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS -- in this particular text: that the phrase is fundamentally parenthetical. To show what I mean I'll offer a 'loose' version of these two verses:

"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have seen with our own eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands have felt-to-touch -- (I'm talking) of the WORD which is LIFE -- and this life became visible, and we have seen it and we attest and report to you the eternal life which existed in the pressence of the Father and (which) became visible to us ..."

I believe -- and I would guess that most interpreters do believe -- that this opening passage of 1 John alludes clearly, unmistakably to the phraseology and conceptual basis of the prologue of the gospel of John: the acc. neuter sg. relative pronoun (hO\)which is the subject of HN in the first relative clause and the object of AKHKOAMEN, hEWRAKAMEN, EQEASAMEQA and EYHLAFHSAN in successive relative clauses should be understood as the LOGOS, the ZWH, and the FWS of the opening verses of the prologue, and these two verses of the 'epistle' should be understood, I believe, as a reiteration of the content of verse 14 of the gospel: KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, KAI EQEASAMEQA THN DOXAN AUTOU. If there's a difference, the difference is that the present passage underscores far beyond the original John 1:14 the physical, historical TANGIBLE reality of the Word become Flesh. The conventional explanation of this emphasis in this text is that the author intends to underscore, as against docetic misinterpretation of John 1:14, the tangible historical/fleshly reality of the incarnate Word. While some may understand this text differently, I don't think I am asserting here anything different from what is commonly held regarding the sense of 1 John 1:1-2 and its relationship to the prologue of the gospel.

BUT, the PHRASING of the opening verse is a little bit confusing because of the way this prepositional phrase PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS intrudes upon a string of relative clauses which are really substantive clauses: ("that which ... " = "what ..." has some awkwardness to it, a grammatical fuzziness that hints at a semantic fuzziness that resists clear analysis although it seems we all know exactly what the writer means. Surely that neuter singular relative pronoun hO\ wouldn't stand in relationship with PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS to mean something like "the very thing about the word of life which existed in the beginning, which we heard ..." It's a sort of anacoluthon. Verse 2 makes clear that the ZWH is none other than Christ himself, and the affirmations made about the ZWH are the same as those made in the opening verses of the Johannine prologue about the LOGOS. And that's why it seems to me that the phrase PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS as a whole functions as a parenthetical, even "epexegetical" clarifier of what the writer meant to say with his emphatic initial string of substantive relative clauses. Let me try once again to rephrase a less-than-literal version of these two verses:

"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have seen with our own eyes, what we've gazed upon and our hands have felt--it's the Word which is Life I refer to--and the Life became visible and we've seen it and attest and report to you that everlasting life that existed in the presence of the Father and became visible to us ..."

I'd welcome alternative ways of making sense of the phrase PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS within the context of these verses. I certainly don't think that "message" is adequate for LOGOU in this phrase.

By which I mean to say that I agree a little more with mwh on both A. and B.

I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this from Adrianus over on the Latin forum here at Textkit.

By which I mean to say that I agree a little more with mwh on both A. and B.

Thanks for your thoughts.. I value your opinion ....perhaps even more so when it does not necessarily agree with mine.. Would the following be a fair English translation of your Greek paraphrase ?

"We proclaim to you [pl] the truth that was from the beginning, we proclaim to you [pl] the words that we heard, we proclaim to you [pl] Jesus the man whom we saw with our eyes, and we beheld him and our hands felt him. All these things we proclaim to you concerning the Logos of life."

I personally like the following translation from God's Word Translation:

1The Word of life existed from the beginning. We have heard it. We have seen it. We observed and touched it. 2This life was revealed to us. We have seen it, and we testify about it. We are reporting to you about this eternal life that was in the presence of the Father and was revealed to us. 3This is the life we have seen and heard. We are reporting about it to you also so that you, too, can have a relationship with us. Our relationship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4We are writing this so that we can be completely filled with joy.

Henry Alford may be instructive here (though obviously I do not agree with his Trinitarian leanings):

The exegesis turns wholly upon the sense which we assign to the words τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς: and here there has been great diversity among Commentators. This diversity may be gathered under two heads: those who make λόγου the personal hypostatic Logos, who is ζωή, and those who make it the account, or preaching, or doctrine, concerning ζωή. Of this latter number, are for the most part, Socinus and his school (see an exception below), and some few other expositors, e. g., Grotius, Semler, Rosenmüller. Of recent writers, the most distinguished is De Wette. The former, including Œc., Thl., Aug.(1) (“forte de verbo vitæ sic quisque accipiat quasi locutionem quandam de Christo, non ipsum corpus Christi quod manibus tractatum est. Videte quid sequatur: et ipsa vita manifestata est. Christus ergo verbum vitæ.” In Ep. Joh. Tract. i. 1, vol. iii. p. 1978), Bed(2), Calvin (gives both), Beza, Luther, Schlichting (“id est de Jesu quem suo more Sermonem appellat”), Episcopius (who however strikes a middle course, “utrumque simul intelligi, Evangelium, quatenus partim ab ipso Christo revelatum est, partim de ipso Chr. J. agit”), Calov., Bengel, Wolf, Lücke, Fritzsche, Baumg.-Crus., Sander, Huther, al., have been most worthily represented among modern Commentators by O. F. Fritzsche, in his Commentatio I. de Epistolarum Johannearum locis difficilioribus, in the Fritzschiorum Opuscula, pp. 276 ff. And with his interpretation, in the main, I agree, diverging from him in some points of more or less importance. And as this περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is the keystone of the sentence, it will be well to set out the interpretation once for all. I regard then ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς as the designation of our Lord Himself. He is the λόγος, and is the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, this gen. being one of apposition, as He describes Himself as being the ζωή, John 11:25; John 14:6,—the ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς, John 6:35; John 6:48; the φῶς τῆς ζωῆς, John 8:12; cf. also 1 John 1:4. ...

mwh wrote:ερχομενον in Ev.J.1.9 is formally ambiguous too, can be read either as neut. or as masc.

In an earlier post in this thread you made the following assertion : "The ὃ has no antecedent, just "what we have heard" etc., '(the thing) which we have ...'. "

I'm trying to understand this. Could you please elaborate ?..For example, when we come across ὃ, what exactly are we supposed to conceptualize ? In other words, what does "what" mean in each of the clauses ?

In addition to the support you have received, Isaac, from Conrad and Alford in your contention that ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is an epexegetical genitive, you can add to the list the support of the Athenian Bible Society Modern Greek:

περὶ τοῦ Λόγου δηλαδὴ τῆς ζωῆς...

(δηλαδὴ means "namely" in Modern Greek.)

On the other hand, Today's Greek Version supports me and mwh

για το ζωοποιό Λόγο...

So I really think either option is possible.

What are the theological implications if this is in fact epexegetical? And what are the theological implications if Isaac is correct in his point A?

I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this from Adrianus over on the Latin forum here at Textkit.

Markos wrote:In addition to the support you have received, Isaac, from Conrad and Alford in your contention that ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is an epexegetical genitive, you can add to the list the support of the Athenian Bible Society Modern Greek:

περὶ τοῦ Λόγου δηλαδὴ τῆς ζωῆς...

(δηλαδὴ means "namely" in Modern Greek.)

On the other hand, Today's Greek Version supports me and mwh

για το ζωοποιό Λόγο...

So I really think either option is possible.

Yes...Also, thanks for your citations of the Athenian Bible and Today's Greek Version .

What are the theological implications if this is in fact epexegetical? And what are the theological implications if Isaac is correct in his point A?

Isaac Newton wrote:In an earlier post in this thread you made the following assertion : "The ὃ has no antecedent, just "what we have heard" etc., '(the thing) which we have ...'. "

I'm trying to understand this. Could you please elaborate ?..For example, when we come across ὃ, what exactly are we supposed to conceptualize ? In other words, what does "what" mean in each of the clauses ?

Well there's nothing really to elaborate. "what" in a relative clause means just that. "what" can be singular or plural; here it's singular. As I said (as a plain statement of fact), it has no antecedent for it to be referred to. Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απεγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report" (never mind that he interrupts himself -- you have a potential object, well, a whole series of potential objects, and you have to wait for the verb to appear, which eventually it does as he recaps the main objects again in 3 and resumes the original construction). In the case of "what I have written," we know what the thing in question is, because it's already been stated in the narrative. In the case of "what we have heard" etc we have to wait for him to tell what that is. We're not supposed to conceptualize anything. It's meaningless to ask what "what" means when we haven't yet been told. All we can infer from ο ακηκοαμεν is that he's heard something. We just wait for him to explain what that something is. He sets about doing that in 5.

Before reading theologically you have to read untheologically, just taking the Greek as it comes, on its own terms. If I have an axe to grind, that's it.

mwh wrote:Well there's nothing really to elaborate. "what" in a relative clause means just that. "what" can be singular or plural; here it's singular. As I said (as a plain statement of fact), it has no antecedent for it to be referred to. Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απεγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report" (never mind that he interrupts himself -- you have a potential object, well, a whole series of potential objects, and you have to wait for the verb to appear, which eventually it does as he recaps the main objects again in 3 and resumes the original construction). In the case of "what I have written," we know what the thing in question is, because it's already been stated in the narrative. In the case of "what we have heard" etc we have to wait for him to tell what that is. We're not supposed to conceptualize anything. It's meaningless to ask what "what" means when we haven't yet been told. All we can infer from ο ακηκοαμεν is that he's heard something. We just wait for him to explain what that something is. He sets about doing that in 5.

Before reading theologically you have to read untheologically, just taking the Greek as it comes, on its own terms. If I have an axe to grind, that's it.

Thanks for your post. Unfortunately it has raised more red flags.

First , it must be pointed out that "what I have written I have written," is not analogous to that which (no pun intended) we're discussing in the prologue of John's Epistle, as you yourself [I think] unwittingly acknowledged as you made the following comment, "in the case of 'what I have written,' we know what the thing in question is, because it's already been stated in the narrative. In the case of 'what we have heard' etc we have to wait for him to tell what that is."

..O.K...., so here are the clauses with the relative pronouns (which apparently have no antecedents):

(A) that which was from the beginning...(B) that which we have heard.. (C) that which we have seen with our eyes, .. (D) that which we have looked at and our hands have touched...

For each (A), (B) , (C) and (D) above, could you please show us where in the Epistle the "writer waits to tell us what that is "?

I'm afraid you've missed the point. o gegrafa is perfectly analogous to o akhkoamen as far as the "meaning" of the relative pronoun goes. There was nothing "unwitting" about my explanation of the difference between their locational contexts. In the Epistle (unlike in the gospel quote), the relative clauses come up front, they are the very first words of the epistle. It follows that we cannot yet know what "what we've heard" is. It's really a very simple point.

As to ABCD, I did not say "the writer waits to tell us what that is" (though he does), I said we have to wait for him to tell us (whether he actually will or not). That, once again, is the simple and undeniable point I was making.

mwh wrote:I'm afraid you've missed the point. o gegrafa is perfectly analogous to o akhkoamen as far as the "meaning" of the relative pronoun goes. There was nothing "unwitting" about my explanation of the difference between their locational contexts. In the Epistle (unlike in the gospel quote), the relative clauses come up front, they are the very first words of the epistle. It follows that we cannot yet know what "what we've heard" is. It's really a very simple point.

As to ABCD, I did not say "the writer waits to tell us what that is" (though he does), I said we have to wait for him to tell us (whether he actually will or not). That, once again, is the simple and undeniable point I was making.

O.K. !... But you're NOT denying that "the writer waits to tell us what that is." So what exactly does the writer wait to tell us ?

But this makes no sense at all.. You said the writer waits to tell us what that something is . But when I ask you what that that something is which the writer eventually tells us( apparently "starting with verse 5) , you won't/can't..

I'm not trying to be difficult, simply attempting to make sense of your statements.

mwh wrote:To find out what he tells us, all you have to do is read the rest of the epistle, it's there on the page.

If you can't make sense of what I tell you, I can't help you.

But if you're making an argument, it is your duty to explain it properly. I personally don't buy into your assertion that the relative pronouns have no anecedents, so obviously I'm not looking for anything "on the page" through the filter of your understanding . You have to tell us exactly what it is that you see in this regard in the "rest of the Epistle." It's your assertion. . I'm saying this as gently as I can, and at the same time being as straighforward as possible; sometimes this is a hard thing to do.. But I mean no dis-respect. .

IMHO, in this thread you have made not one but two very dubious assertions, they are :

(A) τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς in 1 John 1:1 cannot be two genitives in simple apposition unless we add ὅ ἐστι to the expression .

(B) The neuter relatives ὅ in the opening section of the Epistle have no antecedent(s).

We must not make claims like these and not take responsibility for them. I think you should recant claim (A) imediately, and explain your claim (B) more clearly.

Isaac, are you trying to get at the notion that the Logos is not a Person, but a thing? I assume that you construing the verse as though John wrote:

ἀπαγγέλλομεν ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ τῆς ζωῆς λόγου τοῦ ὄντος ἀπ' ἀρχῆς.

Now, because of the way that Greek works, if he wanted to convert this to a relative clause, John would have, I think, a choice of genders to use.

ἀπαγγέλλομεν ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ τῆς ζωῆς λόγου ὃς ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς.

ἀπαγγέλλομεν ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ τῆς ζωῆς λόγου ἣ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς.

Could he have used the neuter?

ἀπαγγέλλομεν ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ τῆς ζωῆς λόγου ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς.

Smyth, Greek Grammar, 2502d.d. The relative may stand in the neuter, in agreement with the notion implied in the antecedent rather than with the antecedent itself; as διὰ τὴν πλεονεξία_ν, δ̀ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυ_κεν ὡς ἀγαθόν for the sake of profit, a thing which every nature is inclined to pursue as a good P. R. 359c.

Maybe. Would that mean that the logos is not understood as a person? No, I don't think so.

Or maybe I'm off base here. Is that the direction you are going in, Isaac?

ἕως πότε τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν αἴρεις? εἰπὲ ἡμῖν παρρησίᾳ!

I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this from Adrianus over on the Latin forum here at Textkit.

Markos wrote:Isaac, are you trying to get at the notion that the Logos is not a Person, but a thing?

My position is that Logos prior to becoming "flesh" (i.e. "a human being"/"a person') was not a "person," --otherwise I would have the unenviable task of arguing that John 1:14 is asserting that a person became a person. David A. Reed elaborates upon my position about what the Logos was prior to it's coming to earth very well in this regard. If you have the time would you read the following ? http://fdier.free.fr/ReedSemiticJohn.pdf

I assume that you construing the verse as though John wrote:

ἀπαγγέλλομεν ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ τῆς ζωῆς λόγου τοῦ ὄντος ἀπ' ἀρχῆς.

.....Or maybe I'm off base here. Is that the direction you are going in, Isaac?

I'm actually construing differently. The first relative pronoun ὃ is the subject of ἦν . The object of ἀκηκόαμεν,ἑωράκαμεν, ἐθεασάμεθα and ἐψηλάφησαν is λόγος, aka ζωή, aka φῶς.. So I would translate as follows:

"The Word , that is, the Life was from the beginning. We have heard it. We have seen it. We observed and touched it. ..."

No Isaac Newton you are mistaken. I had no duty to try to help you in the first place, and I have no duty to you now. I stand by everything I've told you, and regret that none of it seems to have got through to you.

mwh wrote:No Isaac Newton you are mistaken. I had no duty to try to help you in the first place, and I have no duty to you now. I stand by everything I've told you, and regret that none of it seems to have got through to you.

Alas, even something as patently false as the following -- "If he'd wanted to make it epexegetic he'd have had to add ὅ ἐστι."

In anycase, thanks for your time and effort. .. Sincerely, In the peace of Christ,

I'm working from the assumption that apostle John was a Jew and also a monotheist, that is, that he was a Jewish monotheist, and not just any monotheist . A Jewish monotheist would find it impossible to conceive of God as multiple "persons" within a "Godhead." For a Jew such is the ultimate sin, "Avodah Zarah" ( idol worship) -- it is the most severe prohibition in the Torah. So in order to correctly grasp what the apostle is actually saying in his prologue , we have to think like the Jews, preferably like first century Jews .

In this regard, what better place than the Encyclopedia Judaica , if we wish to correctly understand ancient Jewish paradigms . We find here that Torah is much more than just a book of sacred writings. It is the very thing which was with God in the beginning and which he consulted as he began to create the Universe. These Jews identified Torah with the Logos:

Origin and Preexistence "Moses received the Torah from Sinai" (Avot 1:1). Yet there is an ancient tradition that the Torah existed in heaven not only before God revealed it to Moses, but even before the world was created. The apocryphal book The Wisdom of Ben Sira identified the Torah with preexistent personified wisdom (1:1–5, 26; 15:1; 24:1ff.; 34:8; cf. Prov. 8:22–31). In rabbinic literature, it was taught that the Torah was one of the six or seven things created prior to the creation of the world (Gen. R. 1:4; Pes. 54a, et al.). Of these preexistent things, it was said that only the Torah and the throne of glory were actually created, while the others were only conceived, and that the Torah preceded the throne of glory (Gen. R. 1:4). According to Eliezer ben Yose the Galilean, for 974 generations before the creation of the world, the Torah lay in God's bosom and joined the ministering angels in song (arn1 31, p. 91; cf. Gen. R. 28:4, et al.). Simeon ben Lakish taught that the Torah preceded the world by 2,000 years (Lev. R. 19:1, et al.) and was written in black fire upon white fire (tj, Shek. 6:1, 49d, et al.). Akiva called the Torah "the precious instrument by which the world was created" (Avot 3:14). Rav *Hoshaiah, explicitly identifying the Torah with the preexistent wisdom of Proverbs, said that God created the world by looking into the Torah as an architect builds a palace by looking into blueprints. He also took the first word of Genesis not in the sense of "In the beginning," but in that of "By means of the beginning," and he taught that "beginning" (probably in the philosophic sense of the Greek archē) designates Torah, since it is written of wisdom (= Torah), "The Lord made me the beginning of His way" (Prov. 8:22; Gen. R. 1:1). It was also taught that God took council with the Torah before He created the world (Tanḥ. B. 2, et al.). The concept of the preexistence of the Torah is perhaps implicit in the philosophy of Philo, who wrote of the preexistence and role in creation of the Word of God (logos; e.g., Op. 20, 25, 36; Cher. 127) and identified the Word of God with the Torah (Mig. 130; cf. Op. and ii Mos.).

The relative pronoun is used again and again for literary effect and to cover the various senses, to say that not only were the authors of the letter (the group for whom the writer was speaking) claiming to have seen something, but to have heard it, to have touched it, to have handled it, etc. The verb associated with all of these relative clauses is one and the same: ἀπαγγέλλομεν.

What are they announcing? They are announcing to the recipients of the letters what they have seen and experienced for themselves. They are relating their personal experience — and this is the meaning of the relative pronoun ὅ with its various clauses.

The relative pronoun is used again and again for literary effect and to cover the various senses, to say that not only were the authors of the letter (the group for whom the writer was speaking) claiming to have seen something, but to have heard it, to have touched it, to have handled it, etc. The verb associated with all of these relative clauses is one and the same: ἀπαγγέλλομεν.

What are they announcing? They are announcing to the recipients of the letters what they have seen and experienced for themselves. They are relating their personal experience — and this is the meaning of the relative pronoun ὅ with its various clauses.

Reading anything more than this into it is eisegetical.

And that "something" is clearly identified by the author as τοῦ Λόγου , that is, τῆς ζωῆς . The antecedent of ὃ in all clauses here is the logos, aka, the life.

The relative pronoun is used again and again for literary effect and to cover the various senses, to say that not only were the authors of the letter (the group for whom the writer was speaking) claiming to have seen something, but to have heard it, to have touched it, to have handled it, etc. The verb associated with all of these relative clauses is one and the same: ἀπαγγέλλομεν.

What are they announcing? They are announcing to the recipients of the letters what they have seen and experienced for themselves. They are relating their personal experience — and this is the meaning of the relative pronoun ὅ with its various clauses.

Reading anything more than this into it is eisegetical.

Above (bold) seems to have been lifted from Daniel Wallace's Net Bible notes. This is Wallace's "translation":

1:1 This is what we proclaim to you:1 what was from the beginning,2 what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life – 1:2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce3 to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us).4 1:3 What we have seen and heard we announce5 to you too, so that6 you may have fellowship7 with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ).

Notice Wallace adds an entire verse into the epistle (bold above), and cuts off περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς from the opening verse [see the brackets] by relegating it into a parenthetical in order to make all of the relative clauses in verses 1 through 3 the objects of ἀπαγγέλλομεν .

To be sure ὃ is the object of the verbs ἀκηκόαμεν.., ἑωράκαμεν.., ἐθεασάμεθα.. and ἐψηλάφησαν respectively. But where Wallace goes wrong is in his insistence that these phrases or relative clauses are themselves the object of the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν. In English as well as in Greek, a relative clause if it is the object of a verb is invariably in it's immediate (or else very close) vicinity. The bottom line is that the relative clauses in 1 John 1:1-4 are not the object of a verb.

(A) The relative pronoun could refer to "the Word" in the phrase "the Word of life". "This "Word," like the "Word" in John's Gospel ( 1:1) was from the beginning. But as you already know, the relative in the phrase is neuter and not the masculine form you might expect in order to be in agreement with Logos. This view is not impossible (W 336-45), but it remains an awkward grammatical construction (HJS, 21-22).

(B) Another possibility is that the relative pronoun refers to "life," which also occurs in the prepositional phrase of verse 1. However "life" also lacks agreement with the pronoun , and this along with the awkward grammatical construction, may argue against this view.

(C) It is probable that the relative pronoun refers to Jesus and his whole career (perhaps as it is described in the GJohn). All the relative pronouns in vv. 1-3 appear to be a comprehensive reference to the Incarnation of Jesus, whose existence as a man and career the author "witnessed" and thereby bears "testimony" about to his readers (Brown, 154). Thus the object of the author's proclamation is the person, words, and deeds of Jesus (NET). So then, in your own words, what do the relative clauses refer to in vv. 1-3?

(A) above is the only sensible understanding of the text IMHO (and is prehaps why Bateman subconsciously lists it first). It comes across as "awkward" to him because he fails to recognize the apostle's application of constructio ad sensum here, due to Bateman's thorough trinitarian indoctrination.

Had it not been for the fact that Bateman aproaches this text with preconceived 4th century Chalcedonian lenses, he could not have given option (C) any serious consideration, IMHO.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 governs only the single clause ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν (notice the relative pronoun is not repeated).

Hi, I understood you to be saying that the ὃ's in verse 1 were too far away from ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 for them to be their object. Now to me it is obvious that the ὃ in verse 3 is referring to the same thing as they are - I think he is repeating it for the very reason you say, that they are rather a long way away from the verb otherwise. 'What we saw and what we heard' is pretty much the same as 'what we saw and heard', is it not - and I think that is true in the Greek too. I think ὃ means τοῦτο ὃ - much like 'that which' in English means much the same as 'what'. 'We announce to you what we saw and heard about the word of life' is the general idea, so far as I can see.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 governs only the single clause ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν (notice the relative pronoun is not repeated).

Hi, I understood you to be saying that the ὃ's in verse 1 were too far away from ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 for them to be their object. Now to me it is obvious that the ὃ in verse 3 is referring to the same thing as they are - I think he is repeating it for the very reason you say, that they are rather a long way away from the verb otherwise. 'What we saw and what we heard' is pretty much the same as 'what we saw and heard', is it not - and I think that is true in the Greek too. I think ὃ means τοῦτο ὃ - much like 'that which' in English means much the same as 'what'. 'We announce to you what we saw and heard about the word of life' is the general idea, so far as I can see.

Andrew

What do you mean by "repeating it" ? The apostle is "repeating" only the words "ὃ ἑωράκαμεν" and "ἀκηκόαμεν" ( but not with the same grammatical construction or within the same contextual framework) , nor is he repeating the other relative clauses, including the crucial first one. And most importantly, he's not "repeating" ἀπαγγέλλομεν.

If anything your example (verse 3) proves my point that a relative clause, if it is the object of a verb , is in it's immediate vicinity .We know ὃ ἑωράκαμεν and ἀκηκόαμεν in verse 3 are governed by the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν because the verb immediately follows the clause. It is ungrammatical to pick on a verb that governs a relative clause and argue that it governs another set of four relative clauses detached from it.

What do you mean by "repeating it" ? The apostle is "repeating" only the words "ὃ ἑωράκαμεν" and "ἀκηκόαμεν" ( but not with the same grammatical construction or within the same contextual framework) , nor is he repeating the other relative clauses, including the crucial first one. And most importantly, he's not "repeating" ἀπαγγέλλομεν.

So do you think that the ὃ in verse 3 has a different referent to the ὃ in verse 1?

It seems quite normal to abbreviate a bit, when one is reiterating something and picking it up again - otherwise it would be long-winded, it seems to me.

What do you mean by "repeating it" ? The apostle is "repeating" only the words "ὃ ἑωράκαμεν" and "ἀκηκόαμεν" ( but not with the same grammatical construction or within the same contextual framework) , nor is he repeating the other relative clauses, including the crucial first one. And most importantly, he's not "repeating" ἀπαγγέλλομεν.

So do you think that the ὃ in verse 3 has a different referent to the ὃ in verse 1?

No, but it's possible.

It seems quite normal to abbreviate a bit, when one is reiterating something and picking it up again - otherwise it would be long-winded, it seems to me.

It seems to me that his main point that he starts with is that they were eye-witnesses - we were there, we saw what happened, we heard Jesus's teaching firsthand etc etc - and he is going to say that what we saw and heard, we also pass on to you - all this is about the word of life - and when he says 'life', he is inspired to speak about the Life, who was the Lord Himself, but also the message of eternal life - and then he picks up again his point about transmission, you could call it the apostolic transmission - that what they saw they were transmitting to those who hadn't themselves been there.

In both the Greek texts I have to hand, the editor has put hyphens before and after verse 2, indicating what one might call a digression - but an inspired one as I say. Would you punctuate it differently?

It seems to me that his main point that he starts with is that they were eye-witnesses - we were there, we saw what happened, we heard Jesus's teaching firsthand etc etc - and he is going to say that what we saw and heard, we also pass on to you - all this is about the word of life - and when he says 'life', he is inspired to speak about the Life, who was the Lord Himself, but also the message of eternal life - and then he picks up again his point about transmission, you could call it the apostolic transmission - that what they saw they were transmitting to those who hadn't themselves been there.

In both the Greek texts I have to hand, the editor has put hyphens before and after verse 2, indicating what one might call a digression - but an inspired one as I say. Would you punctuate it differently?

Andrew

Do you agree with "jaihare" that "the verb associated with all of these relative clauses is one and the same: ἀπαγγέλλομεν" ?

Do you agree with "jaihare" that "the verb associated with all of these relative clauses is one and the same: ἀπαγγέλλομεν" ?

Yes, I think that is right - assuming you mean the relative clauses in verse 1 and 3. And what do you think about the punctuation? Would you punctuate it differently?

Do you know of any translators that have understood it differently? Here for example is the NASB:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Would you agree that in this translation the verb associated with all the relative clauses in verses 1 and 3 is one and the same: 'we proclaim'?

Do you agree with "jaihare" that "the verb associated with all of these relative clauses is one and the same: ἀπαγγέλλομεν" ?

Yes, I think that is right - assuming you mean the relative clauses in verse 1 and 3. And what do you think about the punctuation? Would you punctuate it differently?

Do you know of any translators that have understood it differently? Here for example is the NASB:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

How do we know this, because it's right next to it . The other relative clauses are divorced from this verb. I must say that the reading your championing is ungrammatical.

Would you agree that in this translation the verb associated with all the relative clauses in verses 1 and 3 is one and the same: 'we proclaim'?

Andrew

No. I've only seen Wallace's Net bible make the assertion you and "jaihare" are proffering.

In an earlier post, I offered the following as a decent translation, though I would change the word "existed" in verse 1 to "was" and change one or two other minor things from this translation :

1The Word of life existed from the beginning. We have heard it. We have seen it. We observed and touched it. 2This life was revealed to us. We have seen it, and we testify about it. We are reporting to you about this eternal life that was in the presence of the Father and was revealed to us. 3This is the life we have seen and heard. We are reporting about it to you also so that you, too, can have a relationship with us. Our relationship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4We are writing this so that we can be completely filled with joy.